Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Only apply cpufreq pressure where frequency is invariant

On 8/24/2026 9:06 PM, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> Hi Vincent, Hongyan,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> My original commit message did not clearly describe the concrete issue
> being fixed, and its explanation based on frequency invariance was not
> correct. After looking into this further, I found that the issue I
> observed has a different cause: the cpuinfo.max_freq fallback added by
> d2d5c129d07e ("cpufreq: Make cpufreq_update_pressure() fall back to
> cpuinfo.max_freq").
> 
> The commit message says:
> 
>    However, in the absence of arch_scale_freq_ref(), it is reasonable
>    to assume that cpuinfo.max_freq is the maximum sustainable frequency
>    for the given cpufreq policy.
> 
> That assumption does not always hold.
> 
> On an x86 server using acpi-cpufreq, cpuinfo.max_freq includes the
> autonomous boost frequency, while policy->max is resolved to the
> highest selectable _PSS state. With boost enabled and policy->max
> unchanged at that state, the measured CPU frequency can still exceed
> policy->max. Thus, policy->max does not represent an effective hardware
> maximum-frequency cap in this case.
> 
> Nevertheless, the cpuinfo.max_freq fallback makes
> cpufreq_update_pressure() calculate positive pressure for every policy,
> although no effective maximum-frequency restriction has been applied.
> 
> The underlying issue is that cpuinfo.max_freq is the maximum possible
> operating frequency and may include an autonomous boost frequency,
> whereas policy->max may represent the highest selectable _PSS state.
> Consequently, policy->max < cpuinfo.max_freq does not necessarily mean
> that the available CPU capacity has been capped.
> 
> 
> Therefore, this patch checks the wrong condition and is not the right fix. I will drop it.
> 
> Instead, I am investigating a fix for the reference-frequency fallback
> in the cpufreq subsystem. One possible approach is to use the highest
> non-boost frequency-table entry when arch_scale_freq_ref() is
> unavailable, and only fall back to cpuinfo.max_freq for drivers without
> such an entry.

I see. So basically on your system, cpuinfo.max_freq includes boost 
frequencies whereas policy->max doesn't, so the policy->max < 
cpuinfo.max_freq arithmetic comparison gives you 'pressure' even without 
any actual pressure in your system. You might want to re-phrase the 
problem better as it took me quite a while to understand it.

So this is not frequency-invariance-related. This basically boils down 
to the definition of different policy->fields, which might be better 
commented by people working often with boost frequencies.

> Does that approach sound reasonable?
> 
> Thanks
> Jianyong